linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:05:55 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
        qyousef@...alina.io, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
        patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
        qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joshdon@...gle.com,
        timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com, yu.c.chen@...el.com,
        youssefesmat@...omium.org, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:36 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 01:50:50PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Heh, this is actually the correct behaviour. If you have a u=1 and a
> > > u=.5 task, you should distribute time on a 2:1 basis, eg. 67% vs 33%.
> >
> > Splitting like that sounds like starvation of the sleeper to me. If something
> > sleeps a lot, it will get even less CPU time on an average than it would if
> > there was no contention from the u=1 task.
>
> No, sleeping, per definition, means you're not contending for CPU. What
> CFS does, giving them a little boost, is strictly yuck and messes with
> latency -- because suddenly you have a task that said it wasn't
> competing appear as if it were, but you didn't run it (how could you, it
> wasn't there to run) -- but it still needs to catch up.
>
> The reason it does that, is mostly because at the time we didn't want to
> do the whole lag thing -- it's somewhat heavy on the u64 mults and 32bit
> computing was still a thing :/ So hacks happened.

Also you have the whole "boost tasks" that sleep a lot with CFS right?
 Like a task handling user input sleeps a lot, but when it wakes up,
it gets higher dynamic priority as its vruntime did not advance. I
guess EEVDF also gets you the same thing but still messes with the CPU
usage?

> That said; I'm starting to regret not pushing the EEVDF thing harder
> back in 2010 when I first wrote it :/
>
> > And also CGroups will be even more weird than it already is in such a world,
> > 2 different containers will not get CPU time distributed properly- say if
> > tasks in one container sleep a lot and tasks in another container are CPU
> > bound.
>
> Cgroups are an abomination anyway :-) /me runs like hell. But no, I
> don't actually expect too much trouble there.

So, with 2 equally weighted containers, if one has a task that sleeps
50% of the time, and another has a 100% task, then the sleeper will
only run 33% of the time? I can see people running containers having a
problem with that (a customer running one container gets less CPU than
the other.). Sorry if I missed something.

But yeah I do find the whole EEVDF idea interesting but I admit I have
to research it more.

 - Joel